jenbanimThis is neat
Douglas Edwards@jenbanim I wouldn't have thought of myself as a "blue purist" — my favorite color is a greenish blue that I describe as "hot turquoise" — but according to this test, I am. I took it twice, and my cutoff for the amount of blue required to classify a green-blue admixture as "blue" was at 93% of the population distribution the 1st time, 97% the second time. Apparently my "hot turquoise" is mostly blue with just a hint of green, and is very different from what the test calls turquoise. OR...
@jenbanim ...maybe the population who have taken the test so far happen to be "green purists", and have skewed the statistics. I find the test's results hard to credit at face value, since printer's cyan on paper — which I thought was supposed to be an equal mix of blue and green? — looks to me virtually identical to my "hot turquoise", and looks blue, not green, to my eyes.
@jenbanim Or maybe I'm wrong about the actual physical light wavelength distribution reflecting off printer's cyan on paper? Maybe printer's cyan looks blue to me because the light coming off it really does have most of its energy in the blue wavelengths? This would explain why attempts to simulate cyan on actively illuminated RGB monitors invariably look MUCH greener (and less attractive!) to me than does printer's cyan on paper.